sch_get_component

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not mention cache bypass, netlist resolution cost, or multi-instance targeting, all of which live only in the schema param text.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the key concept (components by primitive ID) leads. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read tool with rich schema annotations and full parameter coverage, the essentials are present. However there is no output schema and the description never characterizes the returned component object, nor does it warn about the instance_id requirement when multiple EasyEDA instances are connected.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (refresh, document, instance_id, skipNetlist, primitiveIds) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that IDs may be single or plural, adding no format, ordering, or behavioral detail beyond the anyOf already declared.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (schematic components) with the lookup key (primitive ID(s)). This distinguishes it from sch_get_all_components and sch_get_primitive_type, but the description never names those siblings, so the differentiation must be inferred from the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent where to obtain primitive IDs, when to prefer sch_get_all_components instead, or when sch_get_component_pins is the right call. Usage is only implied by the presence of the primitiveIds parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.